"Debate" (sort of): The Origin and Evolution of Whales

[ProcInc]

INTRODUCTION:

Recently I had been engaged in litteris privately with a youtube user named "benthemiester" (presumably he meant to call himself benthemeister).

The format and contents of the arguments used are what is to be expected from a garden variety creationist (though ben adamantly denies he is a creationist) and after several deconstructions and rebuttals of his arguments (though obviously not to his satisfaction) I began to regret that I could not use his poor scholarship and integrity as an example of classic creationist incompetence since the discourse was made in entirely in private (If I can think of a practical way in doing so I will happily provide the transcripts to anybody on demand but there is much content).

Among the most noticably terrible series of claims ben made was regarding the evolution of whales. After I used evidence of whale evolution to make I point ben's first ever statement regarding it was as follows:

As for the whale of a tale, just more circular reasoning. Someone told you that whales evolved from wolf like land animals and because many but not all evolutionist accept this, you asume it to be a fact. Have you ever seen the actual fossils? not only are most of the parts missing and have to reconstructed by an artist with absolutely no reference and nothing but the imagination of the person trying to make a case for it, but the time lines are not based on anything concrete. There is no way you can tell a 50 million year old fossil from a 47 million year old fossil even based on the fossil index, which is based on the geological time column, and a geological time column wich is based on fossil index (more circular reasoning).

benthemiester (Dec 14, 2010)

I avoided going into detail on the evidence of whale evolution since I wanted to avoid as much as possible the increasingly thin spread of subjects typical in a discussion with a creationist.

In this format however I intend to set this right by making the information I share public and therefore open to scrutiny and criticism in order to demonstrate that the denialism ben places on the multiple avenues of science indicative of evolution are unjustified.

My inital proposal:

You want to assert that whales did not descend from land animals even though the evidence for this, along with other recognisable evolutionary transitions is incontravertable.

I want to take the opportunity to demonstrate to you how this evidence is satisfactory to the harshest skepticism and the most dishonest of denialism but I want to be able to do it on public record so that anybody can access both your own and my own responses and be able to see for themselves the prevailing competence and honesty of either.

Usually these sorts of things are given the misnomer of "debate" even though the evolution of living things is technically no longer a debatable science (Debates typically revolve around topic questions of which there are two- at least superficially- defensable propositions.) but for the simplicity of language I will refer to it as that.

The debate topic will be: "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals and not a 'special creation' makes a case beyond reasonable doubt."

ben's response to this proposal was thus:

You can entitle it anything you wan't (sic), but remember, I never said anything about special creation. You did. So if you want to give the impression that I said it to ease your burden, then you are a free person. I cant stop you from doing what you want. I also hope you have the decency to make it clear that when you speak of reasonable doubt, that your speaking of your reason, not mine. I'm already aware of your circular reasoning and semantics.

Bring your friends too, so they can cheer you on and call me stupid, and talk about flying spagetti monsters, creatards and what ever other straw men you choose.

I'm a little busy right now, but start without me, and Ill catch up when I have some time.

I want to explicitly state that I do not want to be cheered on nor do I want reminding of ben's stupidity. In fact I would prefer criticism of me as the priority since I have a vested interest in promoting accurate science and honesty.

As you would probably predict the evidence I will demonstrate will come from

-Embryology and developmental biology
-Morphology and comparative anatomy
-paleontology and paleogeography
-genetics and molecular biology
-Summation of the disparate fields indicating the same thing

Ben has already implied that he refuses to acknowledge the data in advance and unheard so convincing him is obviously not a primary goal. I intend instead for this to be a typical example of creationist egregiousness and incompetence and to create an easily accessable archive of visually supported information detailing whale evolution.

This is an infomal debate so I invite any creationists or "evolution skeptics" to offer their own rebuttals and insult as much as they wish. Though I respectfully ask the "evolutionists" (I really that that word) to abstain from either for the time being (just in order to initially tip things on favour of ben).

I will give ben until Monday, Jan 10th to respond with any introductory point he would like to make before I bring out the first batch of evidence indicative of whales descending from land animals. Though I didn't have much to ultimately say in this post so I don't anticipate one.

 

[Inferno]

I've seen some of the responses from ben on other videos. I'm not exactly sure what he believes (no creation yet no evolution?) but he is of course wrong.

Since you don't want any additional input, I won't link you to a site that already covers whale evolution and I'll await your first post with evidence.

 

[Squawk]

If you want a formal debate setup in the debate forum just say so in this thread

 

[ProcInc]

I will get back to you on that before monday. It makes little difference to me as either way the discourse is public and therefore poor argumentation/dishonesty/ignorance from either party can be exposed and referenced.

And Inferno: to be sure, ben is a creationist. In isolated cases he has implicitly argued in support of a young earth and biblical accuracy and so the term ' biblical creationist' or 'young earth creationist' (he has even argued in support of kent hovind and implied there is a conspiracy against him by the NCSE. He also has copy pasted misinformation from creation wiki and frequently relies on creationist sources for quote mines.

However ben denies any association with the term creationism and is indignant at the suggestion despite all of these facts. An indignity I find ironic since he refers to me as a "darwinist" despite the fact I subscribe to the extended synthesis which ben asserts disproves "darwinism".

 

[benthemiester]

"Ben has already implied that he refuses to acknowledge the data in advance and unheard so convincing him is obviously not a primary goal."

"As you would probably predict the evidence I will demonstrate will come from" etc.


Before I continue, I have a question. Who are you speaking to, and when did I ever imply a refusal to acknowledge anything?
I'm reading these statements above, and I"m a little confused by your language. It sounds like your speaking to a jury and not speaking to me directly.
Is this an appeal for empathy. I dont mean to go off track here, but I thought this was going to be between you and I. I also thought this was going to be about a particular subject which you arbitrarily chose and prepared for before you told me about your idea, in wich I said, sure why not. This was yesterday.

You said you would give Ben a certain deadline to respond. I told you I was busy right now, and to start with out me (wich I thought was generous) but you could have at least
let me know about this arbitrary deadline of yours.
I didn't realize that this was going to be about our personel feelings concerning past discussions.
I just wanted to get a couple of things straight before I take time out from what I am doing right now, and
just wanted to clarify a few things first.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

"Ben has already implied that he refuses to acknowledge the data in advance and unheard so convincing him is obviously not a primary goal."

"As you would probably predict the evidence I will demonstrate will come from" etc.


Before I continue, I have a question. [To] Who[m] are you speaking to, and when did I ever imply a refusal to acknowledge anything?
I'm reading these statements above, and I"m (sic) a little confused by your language. It sounds like your speaking to a jury and not speaking to me directly.
Is this an appeal for empathy[?] I dont (sic) mean to go off track here, but I thought this was going to be between you and I. I also thought this was going to be about a particular subject which you arbitrarily chose and prepared for before you told me about your idea, in wich (sic) I said, sure why not. This was yesterday.

You said you would give Ben a certain deadline to respond. I told you I was busy right now, and to start with out me (wich (sic) I thought was generous) but you could have at least
let me know about this arbitrary deadline of yours.
I didn't realize that this was going to be about our personel (sic) feelings concerning past discussions.
I just wanted to get a couple of things straight before I take time out from what I am doing right now, and
just wanted to clarify a few things first.

Cleaned that up for you.

Anyhow, it's obvious that you're ignoring the Evidence that has been presented to you. You have simply shrugged it off, and said "Meh."
Denying that mountains are made of stone does not make them candy, by any means, or any less massive. Mountains do not require "Belief" as a prerequisite for their existence - we can solidly test that the mountain exists.
Your ignorance on it's existence doesn't impact the fact that the evidence exists. Ignoring that just makes you look like a twit.

 

[ProcInc]

First off, Hytegia. I want the reiterate that I do not want other people attempting to respond negatively to Ben, no matter how tempting. This may sound pompous of me but it is important since:

a. Too many voices would dilute the effects of the responses and let a lot of information (and possibly misinformation) go unchecked.
b. Ben will see this as being "ganged up on" which will create in his mind the impression of martyrdom.
c. To the extent that Ben would be "ganged up on" it will give me an unfair advantage. I don't need any advantage to make my point.
d. Once the discourses start branching out it will be impossible to understand the order of responses and statements when the thread is archived

Before I continue, I have a question. Who are you speaking to, and when did I ever imply a refusal to acknowledge anything?

That's a fair enough question. I am in fact speaking to a 'jury' the jury being anyone willing to see. The point of this introduction is to introduce other people to the forum. Since this is technically a debate I will be addressing your points though not necessary you (Ben) directly unless specific circumstances call for it.

You implied a refusal to acknowledge the facts before hearing them here:

I cant stop you from doing what you want. I also hope you have the decency to make it clear that when you speak of reasonable doubt, that your speaking of your reason, not mine. I'm already aware of your circular reasoning and semantics.

Bring your friends too, so they can cheer you on and call me stupid, and talk about flying spagetti monsters, creatards and what ever other straw men you choose.

Impartially, reason is reason and it is possible to satisfactorily present a case beyond reasonable doubt even to people of a different initial persuasion. Now, I may in the future present the case beyond reasonable doubt and I may not but to state before I deliver my first datum of evidence that the evidence can by definition only be satisfactory to me and not you implies that you are prepared to dismiss as a knee jerk reaction and that nothing I say can possibly be convincing.

I'm reading these statements above, and I"m a little confused by your language. It sounds like your speaking to a jury and not speaking to me directly. Is this an appeal for empathy. I dont mean to go off track here, but I thought this was going to be between you and I. I also thought this was going to be about a particular subject which you arbitrarily chose and prepared for before you told me about your idea, in wich I said, sure why not. This was yesterday.

It is true Ben that I am not speaking to you directly. It is for the viewers interested in this thread (of whichever persuasion). The purpose of the introduction is just that, to introduce.

Also, I prepared for the subject after informing you about it and have already covered my reason for discussing the specific subject.

Obviously you are quite confident in your previous assertion that the evidence in favour of whale evolution is not satisfactory (or even real) and so this should be a comfortable enough argument for you.

You said you would give Ben a certain deadline to respond. I told you I was busy right now, and to start with out me (wich I thought was generous) but you could have at least let me know about this arbitrary deadline of yours.

The only responxe in which you had a deadline to make was your own intrroduction (which apparently you have just delivered)

I made this clear here:

I will give ben until Monday, Jan 10th to respond with any introductory point he would like to make before I bring out the first batch of evidence indicative of whales descending from land animals. Though I didn't have much to ultimately say in this post so I don't anticipate one

Note how I pointed out I didn't anticipate a response since I didn't much much to say in this post other than introduce this idea. Seeing as you requested I start without you I am not sure what else you hoped to happen.

I will present the first line of evidence before Monday.

 

[lrkun]

I want the reiterate that I do not want other people attempting to respond negatively to Ben, no matter how tempting.

If this is what you want, maybe it is better if you ask the moderators to have a formal debate thread because it will only allow you and the other party to post.

 

[ProcInc]

I discussed it with Ben first. I wanted myself to be open to criticism throughout which is why I didn't start this or as akes formal debate. It seems to be the most sensible option now though

 

[benthemiester]

We haven't even started debating, and I feel like I'm in a comedy club. I'm almost finished with my project and will have more time for this, what ever it is.
There is a couple of things I would like to say because I'm still a little confused by your PM's, and your statements on this site. Let me give you an example of my perspective.

You said you wanted a debate in a public forum. I said OK.

You didn't ask for my input as to what the topic would be. You told me this"¦"¦

"The debate topic will be: "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals and not a 'special creation' makes a case beyond reasonable doubt."

I said"¦"¦ You can entitle it anything you wan't, but remember, I never said anything about special creation. You did. So if you want to give the impression that I did, to ease your burden, then you are a free person. I cant stop you from doing what you want.

Then again, without even asking me for my input on what forum to use, you arbitrary chose forum yourself, and sent PM that said this"¦"¦"here" as in here
"ªhttp://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6668&start=0"¬

I said sure OK.

I felt I was being more than generous at not belly aching, or asking for any concessions of my own. I basically agreed to every thing you asked, and with out a fuss, even with the reputation of this site being well known, as well as from personal experience a few weeks ago after being invited by someone.

I figured as long as it will be a debate on the hypothesis of whale evolution, I didn't have a problem, even if you were going to misrepresent my position in your title. (again more than generous) but as soon as I logged on, I saw that you were already appealing for empathy, which was a surprise to me, when I thought the debate would be based on its merits, and not on personnel feelings and grand standing. After I posted my concerns for my confusion concerning your language, such as "I want to explicitly state that I do not want to be cheered on nor do I want reminding of ben's stupidity""¦"¦ by the way, this is called a "Wink and a Nudge" popularized by Monty Pythons Flying Circus. You said"¦"¦.

"I have accentuated this point by explicitly discouraged responses directed at you and encouraged criticism of me"

After you sent this message, I go back to read another thread of yours that not only misrepresented the facts, but insisted I was making a case for special creation, when I told you several times I was critiquing the theory, and what do you do? but post another appeal for empathy, as follows"¦"¦..

"It makes little difference to me as either way the discourse is public and therefore poor argumentation/dishonesty/ignorance from either party can be exposed and referenced"

"And Inferno: to be sure, ben is a creationist. In isolated cases he has implicitly argued in support of a young earth and biblical accuracy and so the term ' biblical creationist' or 'young earth creationist' (he has even argued in support of kent hovind and implied there is a conspiracy against him by the NCSE. He also has copy pasted misinformation from creation wiki and frequently relies on creationist sources for quote mines"

"However ben denies any association with the term creationism and is indignant at the suggestion despite all of these facts. An indignity I find ironic since he refers to me as a "darwinist" despite the fact I subscribe to the extended synthesis which ben asserts disproves "darwinism"


There were so many misrepresentations there, I dont even know where to begin. I have never made a case for special creationism or YEC, nor have I brought in any theological argument. I said that the A summit had openly acknowledged and questioned the limitations of the modern Darwinian synthesis, and are still doing so, I never said it proved anything. There is no such thing as just one line of evidence.
So again, is this going to be about childish name calling, by using words like "buffoonery" and "stupidity"? and trying to belittle people who disagree with you, in front of others?
Its not that I cant handle it, its just that I wish you would have said so from the beginning. I thought this was about the merits of the argument.

Is this what you call reason? As in, the League of Reasons? I have joked around with you in private, with the wretched Philistine comment, just to lighten up the conversation, as you have called me an old mediocre guitarist, but I have never tried to assassinate your character in public or private. Just wanted to know before hand what the deal was. Like I said before. I should be finished with most of my work shortly. By the way, I told you I didn't agree with Kent Hovind, nor did I say I supported him. I simple told you that he never claimed to have a PHD. The way your statement was worded, it implied he did.


Hopefully when I return, we can speak on the topic of whales, which is what I thought the topic was going to be about, but you have seemed to turn this into a personel attack on my character, and before we've even gotten started. If you want to continue your grandstanding, thats fine, I just wanted to be aware of it, and now I am.

 

[Inferno]

benthemiester: I won't argue with you on any of the topics you've just laid out above because I don't know about your PM exchange. However, I WILL have to call you out on the following:

By the way, I told you I didn't agree with Kent Hovind, nor did I say I supported him. I simple told you that he never claimed to have a PHD.

This is wrong. The following is a quote from Creation Science Evangelism, his own website. (Now run by his son Eric Hovind if I'm not entirely mistaken.)

Creation-Science-Evangelism aka drdino.com[/url]"]In response to these goals, shortly after finishing his Ph.D. in education, he began the full-time ministry of Creation Science Evangelism.

It is clear that Hovind DOES claim that he has a Ph.D.
It is also clear that he got it from a diploma mill.
Ergo: Kent Hovind does not have a Ph.D. and you were wrong about your claim.

 

[ProcInc]

You said you wanted a debate in a public forum. I said OK.

You didn't ask for my input as to what the topic would be. You told me this"¦"¦

"The debate topic will be: "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals and not a 'special creation' makes a case beyond reasonable doubt."

-benthemiester

You have the order mixed up Ben. I stated very clearly in the opening message that the initial idea was to present that beyond reasonable doubt that whales descended from land animals and I selected that topic since you so adamantly opposed it.

You want to assert that whales did not descend from land animals even though the evidence for this, along with other recognisable evolutionary transitions is incontravertable.

I want to take the opportunity to demonstrate to you how this evidence is satisfactory to the harshest skepticism and the most dishonest of denialism but I want to be able to do it on public record so that anybody can access both your own and my own responses and be able to see for themselves the prevailing competence and honesty of either.

Usually these sorts of things are given the misnomer of "debate" even though the evolution of living things is technically no longer a debatable science (Debates typically revolve around topic questions of which there are two- at least superficially- defensable propositions.) but for the simplicity of language I will refer to it as that.

The debate topic will be: "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals and not a 'special creation' makes a case beyond reasonable doubt."

-Me

As everyone can see the idea of presenting the case for whale evolution preceded the term debate so you did not agree to any debate before I gave the topic and the reason why.

I said"¦"¦ You can entitle it anything you wan't, but remember, I never said anything about special creation. You did. So if you want to give the impression that I did, to ease your burden, then you are a free person. I cant stop you from doing what you want.

-benthemiester

I justified the use of the term "Special Creation" and even then gave you the opportunity to present a different alternative. You never gave one

If you want to adamantly deny the shared ancestry and development of whales from its land based ancestors and also want to assert without any evidence a "designer" then by definition what you are advocating is "Special Creation". If you have a better word for it that in some way has a different definition to special creation then so be it but that is the impression your wholly false views piece together.

If you want to assert a different explanation consistent with all the data of how whales came about then you are welcome to. But to pander to your (ironically semantic) objections I can change the topic to "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals makes a case beyond reasonable doubt particularly over any alternative thus far proposed"

- Me 6/1/11

I later stated

Then give me a better term for your alternate explanation. Your argument at the very least IMPLIES special creation and...you refuse to elaborate yourself

*-Me

(I ellipsed over the word "since" as its addition was a typo)

and even later stated

On Monday but it would be appreciated if before then you

a. Gave as detailed a summary as possible for the alternative explanation to the evolution (of) cetaceans.

Me 7/1/11

I gave you plenty of opportunity to point out what you ACTUALLY were asserting is a superior alternative to whale evolution. Perhaps you would like to state what is it publically now?

Then again, without even asking me for my input on what forum to use, you arbitrary chose forum yourself, and sent PM that said this"¦"¦"here" as in here
http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6668&start=0

-benthemiester

Wrong again, I stated this:

I am willing to present the case either in video or public forum format.

-Me

I said sure OK.

-benthemiester

actually Ben you said this

League of Reason. lmao
The name itself is the epitome of irony. Is Aronra still upset with me? Thats funny.

-benthemiester

I felt I was being more than generous at not belly aching, or asking for any concessions of my own

. -benthemiester

Well indeed you DID bellyache and I have offered repeatedly for you to make concessions.

After your random "lmao" message I stated the following:

I

'm not exactly sure what the point of this message was, apparently you wanted to criticise the forum being used, which was selected for its close affinity to youtube. Ultimately the forum doesn't matter as long as its public, I have accentuated this point by explicitly discouraged responses directed at you and encouraged criticism of me

Me 7//1/11

and later found out more and stated this

Also Ben, it appears as though you acquired Membership to the League of Reason forum site over a month before me.

Interesting that you would disparage the medium despite deciding to be a part of it first

-Me 8/1/11

I figured as long as it will be a debate on the hypothesis of whale evolution, I didn't have a problem, even if you were going to misrepresent my position in your title. (again more than generous)

-benthemiester

The position was based on your assertions and I offered to correct it if you gave the proper alternative.

After you sent this message, I go back to read another thread of yours that not only misrepresented the facts

-benthemiester

which facts?

but insisted I was making a case for special creation, when I told you several times I was critiquing the theory, and what do you do? but post another appeal for empathy, as follows"¦"¦..

-benthemiester

Creationists say the same thing all the time. You were not critiquing the theory you were denying the evolution of whales and therefore claimed that either

-whales have always existed
-whales appeared fully formed out of nowhere
-whales appearded according to the vague descriptions given by creationists

Two of the three are special creationism, do you advocate the first instead?

Tell me exactly why your view differs form special creation. Tell everyone!

I have never made a case for special creationism or YEC

-benthemiester

indeed you have. The damnding evidence it obviously your advocacy of Intelligent Design, which is creationism.

nor have I brought in any theological argument.

-benthemiester

That isn't a requirement

I said that the A summit had openly acknowledged and questioned the limitations of the modern Darwinian synthesis, and are still doing so, I never said it proved anything. There is no such thing as just one line of evidence.

-benthemiester

They didn't question the limitations, they discussed its status and recent process. In Massimo Pugluiggi's own words (taken from "Nonsense on Stilts" a book a purchased yesterday and did not have access to prior to which)

Mazur's presentation of the scope of the workshop was misleading at best. Yes, this was a gathering of well-known evolutionary biologists and philosphers, but the agenda was simply to discuss the current status of the theory and progress has been made in the past few years. Calls for an "extended evolutionary synthesis" that is, a modified version of the biological equivalent of the standard model of physics (The so called Modern Synthesis), has been made before, and it was therefore not that unusual to get people together in the same room to talk about it

pp 101 "Blame the Media?"

and later

But Mazur herself wasn't done with it, she began publishing (also in 'scoop') a six part "investigative" story entitled "The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand up?" Once again this turned out to be a long winded ramble that displayed in full color Mazur's lack of understanding of the subject matter and penchant for conspiracy theorizing. What was both illuminating and amusing was the shifting portrait of me which she presented to her readers

pp 102 "Blame the media?"

So again, is this going to be about childish name calling, by using words like "buffoonery" and "stupidity"? and trying to belittle people who disagree with you, in front of others?
Its not that I cant handle it, its just that I wish you would have said so from the beginning. I thought this was about the merits of the argument.

-benthemiester

If you ever thought that it was about the merits of the argument you would not adhere to such a discredited position. That being said the content of the debate itself will rely on the merits of the evidence.

Is this what you call reason? As in, the League of Reasons?

-benthemiester

I am very much disinterested in the title of the blog.

I have joked around with you in private, with the wretched Philistine comment, just to lighten up the conversation, as you have called me an old mediocre guitarist, but I have never tried to assassinate your character in public or private.

-benthemiester

You've also called me a filthy heathen (isn't that theological?) albeit jokingly (kind of) and questioned my sexual orientation but that isn't the point. Remember that one of my points of the debate is to publically demonstrate your poor scholarship rather than under the protection of private litteris so that when you make gargantuan errors in the name of antievolution its on public record that you made them. Things like:

There are many examples of living things were homology doesn't fit. The wings of a bird are not homologous with the wings of insects.

-benthemiester

or

Any time out of place fossils are found. Darwinist call them phony. The book Forbidden Archeology speaks to this practice.

-benthemiester

Just wanted to know before hand what the deal was. Like I said before. I should be finished with most of my work shortly. By the way, I told you I didn't agree with Kent Hovind, nor did I say I supported him. I simple told you that he never claimed to have a PHD. The way your statement was worded, it implied he did.

-benthemiester

Firstly I demonstrated that Kent Hovind did claim to have a PhD, and he doesn't have one.

Secondly what you did say was not only wrong but also an apparently avid defense of Hovind:

because as far as I know Hovind has never said he had a PHD. He said he had a Masters and many of his nemesis said he lied, but wikileaks says its true and a copy is with the NCSE, an organization that hates Hovind but they wont release it.

Claiming that Hovind has a legit Masters degree and that the NCSE (Hovind's "Nemesis") has tried to cover it up is very easily 'mistaken' for a defense.

Hopefully when I return, we can speak on the topic of whales, which is what I thought the topic was going to be about, but you have seemed to turn this into a personel attack on my character, and before we've even gotten started. If you want to continue your grandstanding, thats fine, I just wanted to be aware of it, and now I am.

[/quote]-benthemiester

Since you claim to have been overly generous in your concessions I will give you an opportunity to "Make it right".

We can scrap whales. You may choose the topic subject and it can be mutually agreed upon. The debate will also be formal disallowing all outside influence.

 

[benthemiester]

I am making it clear, and in spite of your assumptions, references and statements, many of which I have not made, that I have accepted your challenge to a debate on the subject of whale evolution. If you want to pretend it is about YEC, then as I said before, that is completely up to you. Frankly I dont care. I know what I said. In spite of you mentioning Hovind and Altenberg, which are completely different subjects, I wish to adress this whale evolution hypothesis. I think that since you have chosen everything on your own, including topic, forum, dates, title etc, then it is only fair that I ask the first 2 questions. They are very simple and straight forward questions, and I expect you to answer them honestly. By the way, an alternative explanation was not part of the topic, however, since your having a hard time with this, I will simply say that sometimes its OK to say, we just dont know, we are working on it, and maybe someday we will have answers that we can truly say are empirical. Maybe someday we can refer to this theory as the Law of Evolution, but as of now, we just dont know, and what we have now is a generally accepted theory, which seems to work well on small scales, but is still limited in explaining molecule to man macro evolution. This includes hypothesis and subsets of theories which are still unknown or controversial within the general theory, or what s referred to as the Darwinian synthesis. This my position.


How many different transitional stages would you say it took from Pakicetus to full whale, or are you satisfied with sequences as proposed?

 

[Inferno]

Maybe someday we can refer to this theory as the Law of Evolution

No, we will never be able to do that.
See the 15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1, the 15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism pt 2 as well as Falsifying Phylogeny II: Evolutionary Law.

All of this explain why you're confused about the terms "theory" and "law". If you don't want to watch the three videos (you really should, they're worth it) then here's the short version: A scientific theory can never become a Law EVER because a theory is composed of many, many laws.
Remaining just within Evolutionary theory, we've got Mayr's Law of Monophyly, Gould's law of evolutionary economics, Darwin's 3rd Law of Biodiversity, Dollo's Law of Irreversibility and a few fields of study which AronRa lists as Laws but which don't have "the law of X" written over them, but I'll just list them anyway: Evo-Devo, Punctuated Equilibrium, Principle of Gradualism and of course Natural Selection.

 

[ProcInc]

I am making it clear, and in spite of your assumptions, references and statements, many of which I have not made, that I have accepted your challenge to a debate on the subject of whale evolution.

My challenge was specifically that the evidence was overwhelming that whales evolved from land animals and that it far outdid any argument for the special creation of whales.

You wanted to contest the term "special creation" so instead I opted to demonstrate the same thing to the exclusion of "any alternative explanation"

You however refuse to even divulge what ANY (let alone your) alternative explanation is.


I

f you want to pretend it is about YEC, then as I said before, that is completely up to you. Frankly I dont care.

And I didn't so, yeah.

I know what I said. In spite of you mentioning Hovind and Altenberg, which are completely different subjects, I wish to adress this whale evolution hypothesis. I think that since you have chosen everything on your own, including topic, forum, dates, title etc, then it is only fair that I ask the first 2 questions. They are very simple and straight forward questions, and I expect you to answer them honestly.

Keep in mind here that he stated these would be simple and straightforward questions.

By the way, an alternative explanation was not part of the topic

Wrong. I specifically stated the following:

"If you want to assert a different explanation consistent with all the data of how whales came about then you are welcome to. But to pander to your (ironically semantic) objections I can change the topic to "The evidence that whales are the descendents of land animals makes a case beyond reasonable doubt particularly over any alternative thus far proposed"

I will simply say that sometimes its OK to say, we just dont know, we are working on it, and maybe someday we will have answers

unless of course we already DO have the answers and can demonstrate them to a more than satisfactory degree. Besides, even if we stated that we don't know specifically isn't then the best protocol to at least provisionally accept the best explanation which not only accounts for all data but is the only logical explaantion for it and has the ability to accurately predict related data?

Maybe someday we can refer to this theory as the Law of Evolution

Evolutionary theory is and contains a multitude of laws. The fact that you would make a claim like this is yet another testament to your utter incompetence in commentary of the subject and one of the reasons I opted to make this public.

There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity and both are separate entities. The law of gravity was never a theory and the theory of gravity is not sticking its neck out to be a law.

which seems to work well on small scales

correction: which DOES work on every scale, small or large that we have tested it against and is entirely capable of the development of bacteria to humans as well as the sole successful explanation of both bacteria and humans.

This my position.

It is not only a wrong position but the kind of position that is referred to philosophically as "Not even wrong"

How many different transitional stages would you say it took from Pakicetus to full whale, or are you satisfied with sequences as proposed?

You stated that this would be a simple and straightforward question. However is is absolutely no clarity at all in this hodgepodge.

What is a "transitional stage"? at what point can it be determined in the lineage when one stage ends and the other begins? The only possible candidate for a meaning of this word is how many "stages" are preserved in the fossil record. Dozens and dozens of specimens representing ancient species of a clearly transitional status are represented in fossils but from a generation by generation perspective the demarcation of anything resembling a "stage" is purely arbitrary.

Explain to me (in a way that actually means something) what a "stage" is and then an answer can potentially be provided.

Until then here an answer based on the fossil record

If we were to use a mysticete (baleen whale) as a typical full whale (even though this techically renders toothed whales as a transitional stage since they aren't fully whale...what is "fully whale"? are dolphins fully whale?) and used Paikcetus as the exemplary full stage then the fossil record represents a number of important and evident transitions

-Pakicetids (Water tolerant land dwellers)
-Ambulocetids (Water comepent land dwellers)
-Kutchicetids (Amphibious whale-like 'land' mammals)
-Remingnocetids (increasingly whale-like amphibious mammal)
-Rhodocetids (Land tolerant aquatic mammals)
-Maiacetids (aquatic mammals with Land tolerance and birthing)

All of the above could also be arbitrarily designated a single "stage", that of the land dwelling whales (or land dwelling "partial" whales) OR all of the above can be divided between the Water tolerant land lubbers and the land tolerant water lovers. At around the middle the line blurs though since species at this period seem equally adapted for water and land (which seems to be a superior advantage when not taking into account this would mean competition against both specialised land dwellers and specialised water dwellers)

another stage is fully aquatic whales though clearly not fully formed whales, the stage known as the protocetids. Their distinction form Maiacetus is fuzzy at best (since Maiacetus so effectively bridges the two) but I would say this represents a useful "stage" in describing the evolution of whales.

Aside from Dorudon and Protocetus there is also a transitional stage that is more distantly related to modern whales, the Basilosaurids. They show a different adaptation, the long snakelike body (while Dorudon and Protocecus resemble the body plan of extant whales more closely), however they still possess transitional stages typical of the protocetid group (not hardest of all to notice being the uselessly reduced legs which still possess unfused bones including tiny digits. Someting which escapes all explanation aside from them being a clear vestige of a land based ancestry, an explanation which also falls into line with all of the OTHER independent evidence).

ANOTHER interpretation of your 'question' is the minimum requirement of stages to link whales to Pakicetids to a reasonable degree. A reasonable number is four, but I will say five

-Pakicetus itself
-Land/water whales
-Water/land whales
-ex-land water whales (with vestiges of a land-based lifestyle)
-true whales

We have multiple examples of each

Now, each of these stages are clear transitional fossils but are arbitrary stages simply because they are the way the species that happen to be fossilised can be roughly grouped. Remember also that each of these 'stages' is represented by *several* genera which have transitional variations between each other.

Whale evolution is the only explanation for their origin which accounts for

-anatomical, behavioral and molecular vestiges
-superfluous embryonic developements
-atavisms
-genera diversity
-general morphology

and fossil record of this Order. The case I planned to make was a detailed and illustrated description outlining each of this evidence (as well as the importance of the cross confirmation each of these independent fields makes to only one explanation)

But instead I have offered to let you decide on whatever crackpot statement you wish to defend.


I will finish analysing these two statements of yours:

in spite of your assumptions, references and statements, many of which I have not made

Give an example of a statement I directly accused you of making that you didn't make

In spite of you mentioning Hovind and Altenberg, which are completely different subjects

Until I publicly opted to demonstrate your poor scholarship and dishonesty in both cases and definitively indicated either you were entirely willing and eager to discuss both. Indeed right up until I pointed up in Pugluicci's own words the purpose and outcome of the Altenberg summit it was your favourite talking point.

 

[benthemiester]

"What is a "transitional stage?" This seems an odd question, since your willing to use the bottom examples as transitional stages. I have never said Baleen whales were transitional, and as far as modern whales are concerned, there are still open questions as to exactly how they are related. I want to keep this simple.as to not convolute the subject any more than it has to be.

We seem to have certain problems with this supposed whale transition sequence, which is rarely mentioned. For example, the initial Pakicetus skull that was discovered, was fragmented. The majority of the the skull itself had to be reconstructed based on nothing more than assumptions. We now know based on subsequent fossils that the reconstruction of this skull was incorrect on a number of points. The reconstructed skull placed the nasal aperture too far back, as well as the fact that the eyes were also positioned in the wrong place.

The newer skull shows the presence of a sagittal crest which was missing from reconstructed version, nevertheless the reconstructed model was later used as the basis for artist interpretations used in magazines, books and museums showing Pakicetus as an aquatic animal, based on this stubby chubby seal morphology. Unfortunately this model is still used, in spite of the newer evidence. Remember, at that time, all we had was a fragmented partial skull. We also now know in spite of what the public was told, that this creatures hearing was not adapted for under water hearing, but was adapted to terrestrial hearing, like other mammals, because they were terrestrial animals. There is much more I have to say, but I want to keep the subject manageable, so
I'll stop here for now.

 

[Baranduin]

nevertheless the reconstructed model was later used as the basis for artist interpretations used in magazines, books and museums showing Pakicetus as an aquatic animal, based on this stubby chubby seal morphology.

Uh... Wait! WTF? Do you use artist interpretations as a scientific source? Do you know what "artist" and "interpretation" mean, right? No wonder you are so lost... Surely the most academic thing you've ever seen is Walking with Monsters... :shock:

Fear not, benthemiester. Restrain your angst and concern about how an artistic rendering can affect scientific research. They use, you know, something called scientific literature, not artistic models devised to give an approximate and intuitive idea to the general public. The sort of thing you find using, say, Google Scholar, for instance. So when you say things like:

We also now know in spite of what the public was told, that this creatures hearing was not adapted for under water hearing, but was adapted to terrestrial hearing, like other mammals, because they were terrestrial animals.

Anyone can make a couple of searches, and see what scientific literature actually says, like for instance:

http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2982[/url] (2000)"]Gingerich and others (1983) reconstructed a composite skull that was about 35 centimeters long. Pakicetus did not hear well underwater. Its skull had neither dense tympanic bullae nor sinuses isolating the left auditory area from the right one , an adaptation of later whales that allows directional hearing under water and prevents transmission of sounds through the skull (Gingerich and others 1983). All living whales have foam-filled sinuses along with dense tympanic bullae that create an impedance contrast so they can separate sounds arriving from different directions. There is also no evidence in Pakicetus of vascularization of the middle ear, which is necessary to regulate the pressure within the middle ear during diving (Gingerich and others 1983). Therefore, Pakicetus was probably incapable of achieving dives of any significant depth. This paleontological assessment of the ecological niche of Pakicetus is entirely consistent with the geochemical and paleoenvironmental evidence. When it came to hearing, Pakicetus was more terrestrial than aquatic, but the shape of its skull was definitely cetacean, and its teeth were between the ancestral and modern states.

So they agree with you in that Pakicetus couldn't hear well underwater, and that's what we all would expect from a water tolerant land dweller... :facepalm:

Having an unsophisticated ear underwater is not a problem, though, for a water tolerant or water dwelling organism. In the next link, you can read:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20528/full[/url] (2007)"]A diagram of the pakicetid ear function is presented in Figure 7A. Results suggest that these earliest whales probably used normal land mammal hearing in air, where sound vibrations reached the tympanic membrane through the external auditory meatus, and were transmitted further by the ossicular chain to the cochlea. Pakicetids most likely used bone conduction for hearing in water, given the close contact between the periotic bone and the skull, and the relatively massive incus. The lack of a mandibular fat pad and the close connection between the periotic and the skull indicate that the lateral tympanic wall was not functionally significant in their hearing mechanism in water, and the modern odontocete hearing mechanism was not present. Directional hearing in water was poorly developed.

Sadly it seems I can't link you directly to Figure 7A, so you'll have to look at it in the original source. C'mon, it's an incredible opportunity for you to learn something. And as you can see, the diagrams scientists use have nothing to do with artist interpretation used in magazines, books and museums.

Aside, I recommend you to follow the references (you know, those between brackets) to the sources. For instance, what is exactly what that "Gingerich et al. 1983" said about pakicetus?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595/403.abstract[/url]"]The otic region of the cranium lacks characteristic specializations of whales necessary for efficient directional hearing under water. Pakicetus occurs with a land-mammal fauna in fluvial sediments bordering epicontinental Eocene remnants of the eastern Tethys seaway.

And that was nearly three decades ago; not exactly "most recent research". The skeletal remnants you describe seem to be, according wikipedia, discovered in 2001. So it looks like the hole fragmented cranium issue was not an issue after all and we knew all along that Pakicetus' hearing system was not well adapted to water, regardless what you may have heard from the media. Next time, trust scientists, not producers. They make lovely documentaries, I know, but those are not scientific literature.


Read both articles; they're approachable for us laymen. Follow the references to the original articles; see what scientists really work with. What they use. Which are the claims ("land dwelling water tolerant", you know), the reasons for those claims (not "stubby chubby seal morphology", really), and pretty much get an idea of what they actually know. Oh, I'd also recommend you to search on the subject by your own. It took me about three minutes to find those three links, I can't imagine what someone could find and learn in there in, say, a couple of hours?

And don't be shy with your arguments. We don't mind them. Just check about them first. For instance, what consequences do you say the misplaced sagittal crest had, for them to be a problem for the current model of evolution of the whales?

 

[ProcInc]

"What is a "transitional stage?" This seems an odd question, since your willing to use the bottom examples as transitional stages.

Yes, I used transitional fossils as example of transitional stages but as I pointed out your question was ambiguous as to the meaning of "stage" whether is be a group, specimen or generation and how to demarcate each.

Your question was how many were needed anyway. I gave an answer, five are technically needed to make a watertight case (pun intended). We have dozens more than that.

I have never said Baleen whales were transitional

They are according to an objective definition of the word but I catered to your ambiguity and used them as an example of an end product rather than a transitional stage. So in that sense neither of us said baleen whales were transitional forms.

and as far as modern whales are concerned, there are still open questions as to exactly how they are related.

Care to give an example?

Besides, whatever you mean by that is irrelevent since there is no question that modern whales are in fact all related to each other and to all other species.

We seem to have certain problems with this supposed whale transition sequence, which is rarely mentioned.

No Ben, let's take your example to analyse this.

For example, the initial Pakicetus skull that was discovered, was fragmented

.
Riight, so the first Pakicetus skull ever found was fragmented, that's hard luck. However this isn't a problem with the current transition sequence is it? Not least of all for the fact that we have found complete Pakicetus skulls.

Moving on however;

The majority of the the skull itself had to be reconstructed based on nothing more than assumptions

.
Which begs the question what the "assumptions" were based off. The answer is the definitive morphology of the fragments.

The fragmented skull (which I will henceforth refer to as inachus) was composed of a jaw fragment and the back of the skull including the all important ear bone.

TEETH

Inachus and indeed Pakicetus in general is slightly younger than sinonyx, a similar (and definitely terrestrial) mesonychid. Among the remains of inachus there was a good record of its teeth. The teeth were an explemplary transitional feature between Sinonyx and modern Odontoceti (or indeed later transitional forms which were undiscovered in 1981).

CRANIUM

Contrary to your claim, the scientific reconstruction of inachus did in fact include the sagittal crest ( see Gingerich et al 1983). A number of artistic reconstructions by non scientists may or may have left it out but since you give no examples what reason do we have to believe that?

The fact of the matter is that the elongated cranium of inachus/Pakicetus in general as well as the prescence of a prominent sagittal crest as well as lambdoidal crests. All of these are definitive and exclusive traits of whales.

EAR BONES

Though the cranium is indicitively 'Whalian' the ear bones are even more fascinating because they are a mosaic of whale-like and land-lubber traits. In others words perfectly intermediate.

At first the ear bones were so definitively whalelike that the obvious conclusion to draw from the data is that Pakicetus must have been well adapted to the water (remember this bit). However Gingerich also pointed out the lack of specialisation to an aquatic environment (hence the transitional nature of the fossil).

So the "assumptions" of the paleoartist's (though not the paleontologist's who had made a more technical reconstruction for their 1983 paper) reconstruction were well founded and after the later discoveries allowed for a far more accurate reconstruction the transitional status of Pakicetus was even more striking, not discredited.

The reconstructed skull placed the nasal aperture too far back, as well as the fact that the eyes were also positioned in the wrong place.

I like that you gave the nasal aperture as an example because it makes for a good example of the evidence of whale evolution in transitional stages.

Because the blowhole in modern cetaceans are mammalian nostrils that have been moved to the top of the head, it stands to reason that as we found transitional fossils we should see evidence of the migration of the nostrils to the top of the head.

The paleoartist understood this and since inachus was transitional on so many linked points that it was not a major assumption (especially since the artist thought inachus was more dominantly aquatic than it actually was) that Pakicetus would most probably have evidence of the blowhole migration.

Pakicetus didn't but later we did find Younger whale transitional forms with this transitional sequence illustrated clearly.

Here is the most well known example used:

and a better detailed example:

Same story with the migration of the eyes.

I need to make something absolutely clear here.

Pakicetus' significance as a transitional fossil was determined BEFORE ANY artist construction of their interpretation of what the fossil might look like. The study of the fossil and the evidence of the evolution of whales in no way USED the pictures as evidence, instead the paleoartists took the evidence they had and filled in the blanks with artistic licence. No serious scientist ever pointed at a picture and said "look how transitional it is". Inachus and Pakicetus in general is a transitional fossil in spite of what any paleoartist does or doesn't say. It may or may not look like what the artist reconstructed, but the intermediate morphology in the actual fossil is undeniable

Unfortunately this model is still used, in spite of the newer evidence.

Wrong, it isn't. Pakicetus is reconstructed accuractely based on the undeniable data. The more aquatic morphology is known from other younger fossils (remember there are lots of virtually complete whale transitional fossils).

That is why you always find Pakicetus reconstructed like this:

or more commonly like this:

Remember, at that time, all we had was a fragmented partial skull.

Right, so it is easy to understand why the drawing was inaccurate. You seem to want to suggest it was deliberately misleading and the case for its status was based off of the drawing instead of the drawing being based off the known fragments having transtional status.

That is either an example of your lack of knowledge and qualification to be 'critiquing' the science at work or a deliberate dishonesty on your part.

How is it a "problem for the transitional sequence" that the artistic reconstructions became more accurate as more complete specimens and a stronger record of whale evolution was found?

We also now know in spite of what the public was told, that this creatures hearing was not adapted for under water hearing, but was adapted to terrestrial hearing, like other mammals, because they were terrestrial animals.

I of course stated this earlier, its no secret that Pakicetus is now understood to have an ear structure not adapted for the lifestyle of modern whales. The structure of it can only be found today in modern whales though

This structure and positioning was, above anything else it revealed, evidence of Pakicetus' status as a (walking) whale

So, when you claimed to have an example of "certain problems with the supposed whale transition sequence" your first example was an example of the self correcting nature of science and the development of the composite knowledge of Pakicetus which is now culminated into a better picture of the transitional sequence.

Basically you vaguely described that there *was* a problem (with an artistic reconstruction, not the evidence), and there isn't any more.

Do you have a better example? Or I should rather say a real example?

 

[benthemiester]

"Yes, it is a land animal with a whale's ear structure which is exactly what Gregutz said. It is not adapted to the water and that is not being claimed"

Whale are adapted to hear directionally under water. Pakicetus did not have this feature, yet this was the original implication as told to the public. I remember it well.
New Scientist - May 19, 1983 However, some of the auditory bones may well have been partially fused like those of whales and this may have helped Pakicetus to hear underwater.

Are you denying that it was originally considered an aquatic animal as can still seen in many artistic drawings, even today? Are you clamming the skull wasn't reconstructed to fit more of an evolutionary picture with the nasal aperture farther back than it really is?

"The fact it is a whale adapted for life on land makes it transitional"

Your making an assumption that it was a whale, I was hoping your reasoning would be less circular this time. I noticed how you ignored the fact the new evidence overturned many of the original assumption of pakicetus, and your using the terrestrial drawing of it. Why is it that? Why not use the aquatic drawing also?


"Besides, Protoavis is an overly fragmentary"

Pakicetus is also fragmented. Again, most of the original reconstruction was based on very few pieces of the skull. The rest was filled in with imagination. There seems to be a dual standard here. If fossils are fragmented and neo Darwinist think it supports their claim, then all is fine and dandy, however if it doesn't support their claim then it doesn't count.

Please cite your evidence that baleen whales are considered a transitional sequence to whales by your so called objective definition.

"Contrary to your claim, the scientific reconstruction of inachus did in fact include the sagittal crest ( see Gingerich et al 1983)"

When did I use the term inachus?

"I like that you gave the nasal aperture as an example because it makes for a good example of the evidence of whale evolution in transitional stages"

"Because the blowhole in modern cetaceans are mammalian nostrils that have been moved to the top of the head, it stands to reason that as we found transitional fossils we should see evidence of the migration of the nostrils to the top of the head"


I think your missing the point. I said the original reconstructed skull showed the nasal aperture to be farther up than it actually is. Subsequent fossils show the nasal aperture was closer to what most terrestrial mammals have.



"At first the ear bones were so definitively whalelike that the obvious conclusion to draw from the data is that Pakicetus must have been well adapted to the water (remember this bit). However Gingerich also pointed out the lack of specialisation to an aquatic environment (hence the transitional nature of the fossil)"

Translation"¦"¦ When it was thought to be aquatic, (which by the way, a few statements back, you said that it was never said to be) then that was proof that it was transitional, but now that it is known to be terrestrial, now that is also proof that it is transitional. Pretty broad goal post. And remember this bit also, the fact that it is now known not to be an aquatic animal was based on subsequent fossils. Please comment on points made because I have tons of other questions, and lets stick to the points. I expect intellectually honest responses. So far I'm a little disappointed.

 

[ProcInc]

Whale are adapted to hear directionally under water. Pakicetus did not have this feature

MODERN whales are adapted to hear directionally under water, we should expect their terrestrial ancestors not to have this adaptation.

Pakicetus has ear bones structurally indicative of the whale clade but is not specialised for underewater hearing (which we find in younger fossils). That is what makes it such an exemplary intermediate

, yet this was the original implication as told to the public. I remember it well.
New Scientist - May 19, 1983 However, some of the auditory bones may well have been partially fused like those of whales and this may have helped Pakicetus to hear underwater.

1. This was taken from a pop science magazine. How about what actual science was reporting?
2. The article itself made it clear this was a speculation in that it may have helped Pakicetus hear underwater
3. The transitional sequence illustrating adaptation of hearing underwater is well documented in the whale fossil record.

Are you denying that it was originally considered an aquatic animal as can still seen in many artistic drawings, even today?

Are you saying that because it isn't this is a problem for the transitional sequence of Pakicetus to increasingly water tolerant -water dependent genera?

Are you clamming the skull wasn't reconstructed to fit more of an evolutionary picture with the nasal aperture farther back than it really is?

Yes the skull was not reconstructed to fit a more "evolutionary picture". It was reconstructed based on what was discovered, which was a mosaic of fragments with definitive transitional features .

The Accurate depiction of the skull fits "a more evolutionary picture" in its fully accurate form, particularly with placed up against the other members of the sequence.

The nasal aperture DOES have a transitional sequence laid out, I showed two simplified examples, remember? Pakicetus is at the beginning of the sequence and has its nasal aperture at the front, what we should expect when we have a more complete model, something we didn't have in 1983.

Remember that your whole argument so far has relied on the assertion that the problems of artistic misinterpretations of the past somehow nullify the scientific evidence of the present....really?

Your making an assumption that it was a whale

Ben, I have already demonstrated why it was a whale. The tooth, cranial and, yes, even ear structure (In which a transitional structure is performing the primitive, rather than derived, function) are definitive traits that all modern whales have in common to the exclusion to every other mammal.

If we can make any objective judgement as to what a whale is (taking into account the archaeocetes) then Pakicetus must be included because it possesses all the necessary traits.

There's nothing circular about drawing a solid conclusion from sound evidence.

I noticed how you ignored the fact the new evidence overturned many of the original assumption of pakicetus, and your using the terrestrial drawing of it. Why is it that? Why not use the aquatic drawing also?

Really? Nice going Holmes and exactly how did you manage to notice it? Was it perhaps due to the fact that I addressed it specifically as an example of the honest practice of self-correction that "evolutionary science" engages in?

I make it very clear in my message why I point out the accurate reconstruction of Pakicetus and why I did not use the original artist's rendering.

Yet you create the impression of not only not reading my message but ANY information regarding Pakicetus at all!

"Besides, Protoavis is an overly fragmentary"

Pakicetus is also fragmented. Again, most of the original reconstruction was based on very few pieces of the skull. The rest was filled in with imagination. There seems to be a dual standard here. If fossils are fragmented and neo Darwinist think it supports their claim, then all is fine and dandy, however if it doesn't support their claim then it doesn't count.

Wrong, Protoavis is overly fragmentrary and assembled from a series of jumbled bones in a mass grave. There has been no correlating evidence since and the bones that are possessed can have little to no confidence put in them at all.

Pakicetus has has several specimens found and the original find (Which in the last message I referred to as inarchus to distinguish it from other Pakicetus fossils) was not a jumbled assortment, it was clear they were all of one specimen.

Bear in mind also that Protoavis, even if genuine somehow, would not discredit bird evolution from theropods (of which the evidence is overwhelming) and it ESPECIALLY wouldn't discredit evolution of birds in general since it itself appears to possess transitional features (teeth, reptilian tail, sparse/absent feathers).

I myself was going to point out the irony of you lauding Protoavis as such convincing proof yet you tried unsuccessfully to turn it around on me by ignoring both the later Pakicetus fossil finds as well as the multitude of whale transitional fossils in other genera as well as the similar myriad in the theropod/bird transitional sequence.

Please cite your evidence that baleen whales are considered a transitional sequence to whales by your so called objective definition.

I did not say that. If it is a transitional sequence TO whales you want then baleen whales are the bookend, not a transitional (I stated this unambiguously)

Baleen whales ARE transitional in an objective sense because they reproduce with variation and as long as they produce future generations then they are transitional between its ancestry and whatever its lineage may eventually give rise to.

When did I use the term inachus?

You didn't, I did! I highlighted in green what this term was used for an why. I will even repeat myself:

in order to differentiate the fragmentary Pakicetus finds of 1981-83 from the relatively complete fossils of the same genera decades later I identified the 1980s specimen as inachus

Had you read my message you would not have missed this

I think your missing the point. I said the original reconstructed skull showed the nasal aperture to be farther up than it actually is. Subsequent fossils show the nasal aperture was closer to what most terrestrial mammals have.

That's a moot point. The fact is we have the appropriate transitional sequence.

Translation"¦"¦ When it was thought to be aquatic, (which by the way, a few statements back, you said that it was never said to be) then that was proof that it was transitional, but now that it is known to be terrestrial, now that is also proof that it is transitional.

this is a very poor mistranslation. I have to make it even more excrutiatingly simpler.

1. Pakicetus (in this case inarchus) is transitional because of its clearly transitional features such as the teeth, cranial structure and ear structure.

2. The ear structure was a primitive version of that found in whales. The structure itself is what was transitional and the FUNCTION was that which hadn't yet been worked out (but later was)

3. The ear structure is usually associated with fully aquatic mammals (modern whales) and so the initial assuption is that Pakicetus must have been good at hearing underwater) but despite this, later structural evidence revealed that the ear was still too primitive to be specialised for underwater.

If we look at the sequence in this extremely simplified form

land mammal ear structure, above water hearing ability
I
I
I
I
Partial whale ear structure, above water hearing
I
I
I
Whale Ear structure, denser structure (indicative of whales), intermediate hearing
I
I
I
I
I
Whale ear structure, underwater hearing

Pakicetus represents the second in the transition. Nearing the right structure (unique to all land mammals but indicative of whales) but retaining its original function. If you want a more "perfect" intermediate in Whale ear evolution then the skull of Rhodocetus is a good example of the function becoming closer to that of modern whales.

And remember this bit also, the fact that it is now known not to be an aquatic animal was based on subsequent fossils.

Yes, subsequent fossils that show the more complete picture of whale evolution. By the time we had a better grasp of the morphology of Pakicetus we had found dozens of other (relatively complete) transitional fossils in the sequence to the point that the gradient is so smooth that whale fossils alone make a clearcut case for their origin via evolution of land mammals in oppose to any alternative explanation.

Please comment on points made because I have tons of other questions, and lets stick to the points. I expect intellectually honest responses. So far I'm a little disappointed.

This is why I wanted this to be public. You have literally no idea how ridiculous you are in your objections (Paraphrased as 'the evidence must be ignored because an old interpretation was corrected'). Yet you actually think you are doing well?

I'm being intellectually honest and even chucking in as much information as I can on the side. Is it too much to ask the same of you?

Can you do the slightest bit of research before pulling another Dunning-Kruger?

Pakicetus was a fully terrestrial mammal with definitive cetancean traits, was found in the right geological strata to correlate with the molecular evidence for the origin of the whale line and is displaced stratigraphically by Ambulocetus, a more aquatic version of the same body plan.

It is transitional because its morphology is a mixture of non-whale traits, definitive whale traits and structures halfway between the two.

If you can give one reputable example of a Pakicetus being reconstructed in a specialised aquatic form then show it. Otherwise it is apparent that you are bullshitting to compensate for the fact that your argument against Pakicetus is spectacularly bad and has no bearing on the science whatsoever!


P.S.

As has been pointed out the VERY first peer-reviewed article on Pakicetus (reporting on the inachus specimen) makes it clear that it was understood from the beginning that Pakicetus' ear was not adapted to the lifestyle of a modern whale:

Science 22 April 1983:
Vol. 220 no. 4595 pp. 403-406
DOI: 10.1126/science.220.4595.403

Origin of Whales in Epicontinental Remnant Seas: New Evidence from the Early Eocene of Pakistan
PHILIP D. GINGERICH, NEIL A. WELLS, DONALD E. RUSSELL and S. M. IBRAHIM SHAH

Pakicetus inachus from the early Eocene of Pakistan is the oldest and most primitive cetacean known. The dentition of Pakicetus resembles that of carnivorous mesonychid land mammals as well as middle Eocene cetaceans. The otic region of the cranium lacks characteristic specializations of whales necessary for efficient directional hearing under water. Pakicetus occurs with a land-mammal fauna in fluvial sediments bordering epicontinental Eocene remnants of the eastern Tethys seaway. Discovery of Pakicetus strengthens earlier inferences that whales originated from terrestrial carnivorous mammals and suggests that whales made a gradual transition from land to sea in the early Eocene, spending progressively more time feeding on planktivorous fishes in shallow, highly productive seas and embayments associated with tectonic closure of eastern Tethys.

-(Emphasis mine)